Your preference, oil or grease on frame rails?
- Thread starter Redlg155
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Here is Militec's own Brad Giordani discussing the issue of corrosion resistance in an email with Commander TACOM:
http://www.militec-1.com/Thompson32.html
"Next, you state that, "When Militec attempted to pass the CLP specification, the product did not meet the preservative requirement." (p. 1, para. 2) This is true. However, the point is irrelevant. New weapons specs require manufacturers to coat guns for corrosion resistance adequate to meet soldiers' needs before the gun is even lubed.
Here is a Google cache of a corrosion test at GunZone that tested Militec:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach...-rust.html+Corrosion+Test+Guns&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The original link is dead now; but the relevant part is:
"Unsatisfactory:
Arms Cote: >50% rusted.
Miltec-1: Significant rust along bottom; rust freckling on top.
Kroil: >75% rusted."
There is also a third test out on one of the gunboards. I think it is in the archives at AR15.com. I'll add it when it comes back up.
EDITED TO ADD:
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=28&TID=6042&SID=1585654
Nice link with pictures. Test by Cruffler.
http://www.militec-1.com/Thompson32.html
"Next, you state that, "When Militec attempted to pass the CLP specification, the product did not meet the preservative requirement." (p. 1, para. 2) This is true. However, the point is irrelevant. New weapons specs require manufacturers to coat guns for corrosion resistance adequate to meet soldiers' needs before the gun is even lubed.
Here is a Google cache of a corrosion test at GunZone that tested Militec:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cach...-rust.html+Corrosion+Test+Guns&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
The original link is dead now; but the relevant part is:
"Unsatisfactory:
Arms Cote: >50% rusted.
Miltec-1: Significant rust along bottom; rust freckling on top.
Kroil: >75% rusted."
There is also a third test out on one of the gunboards. I think it is in the archives at AR15.com. I'll add it when it comes back up.
EDITED TO ADD:
http://www.gunboards.com/forums/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=28&TID=6042&SID=1585654
Nice link with pictures. Test by Cruffler.
Last edited:
22luvr
Member
Grease.............
I use ordinary white lithium grease by applying a light coating with a toothpick. It stays put and doesn't drip down into a holster like too much oil.
I use ordinary white lithium grease by applying a light coating with a toothpick. It stays put and doesn't drip down into a holster like too much oil.
I use oil for corrosion protection and very light lubrication.
I use grease for heavy sliding friction.
Grease on slides, sears, and pivots under spring tension.
Oil on springs and pivots that aren't under stress.
I use grease for heavy sliding friction.
Grease on slides, sears, and pivots under spring tension.
Oil on springs and pivots that aren't under stress.
My take.
When you REALLY need a lube, you need more than oil.
For corrosion protection, there are MUCH better choices than what you listed.
Engine lubrication is a very different problem. You have a big reservoir of oil and a pump to keep spraying oil up over the parts that need lubrication to keep up with the oil that keeps dripping away from where it is needed.
In a firearm, you want your lube to stay put. You don't have any way to keep reapplying it during operation, and you also don't want it to end up where it doesn't belong.
Tropical Z
Member
I pretty much stopped using "gun" oils with the exception of some limited use of RemOil.I started using FULL synthetic Havoline 5w30 and have found it to be superior to the "gun"oils i had previously used.Im not looking back.
OP
OP
Redlg155
Member
Hmmm..now that I'm thinking about it, that Miltec oil looks pretty much to have the same viscosity as a 5w30 weight oil. It's pretty thick as oils go and definitely thicker than Rem oil.
B Roberts,
Thanks for the links. I got a good look at the tests and for the life of me I can't figure out why or how Breakfree and Eezox fared so well at the test when Miltec fared so poorly. I did find it a bit strange that there were links on the site for both Breakfree and Eezox on the site but not for the other products.
Anyone happens to know what makes these two products fare so well as a rust preventative? As I understand the Miltec stuff also contains CLP.
Not trying to drift this thread towards the virtues or failures of Miltec vs Breakfree, but I am curious.
Ohh..back to the grease.
I'm not sure how well grease should fare on any salt fog test, but we did use GAA routinely on our Artillery peices for just about everything. When I changed my MOS to transportation due to an injury we used GAA on our fifth wheel to prevent it from rusting as normal lubricants would just wash off. Guns in long term storage are stored in Cosmoline, which as I understand is also a type of grease, so grease should have some preservative qualities to it. I've got a beautiful M44 that was made in 1946. No doubt it stayed several decades in cosmoline. The bluing is extremely nice with zero traces of rust. Of course some of this can be attributed to the conditons of the storage facilities.
Good SHooting
Red
B Roberts,
Thanks for the links. I got a good look at the tests and for the life of me I can't figure out why or how Breakfree and Eezox fared so well at the test when Miltec fared so poorly. I did find it a bit strange that there were links on the site for both Breakfree and Eezox on the site but not for the other products.
Anyone happens to know what makes these two products fare so well as a rust preventative? As I understand the Miltec stuff also contains CLP.
Not trying to drift this thread towards the virtues or failures of Miltec vs Breakfree, but I am curious.
Ohh..back to the grease.
I'm not sure how well grease should fare on any salt fog test, but we did use GAA routinely on our Artillery peices for just about everything. When I changed my MOS to transportation due to an injury we used GAA on our fifth wheel to prevent it from rusting as normal lubricants would just wash off. Guns in long term storage are stored in Cosmoline, which as I understand is also a type of grease, so grease should have some preservative qualities to it. I've got a beautiful M44 that was made in 1946. No doubt it stayed several decades in cosmoline. The bluing is extremely nice with zero traces of rust. Of course some of this can be attributed to the conditons of the storage facilities.
Good SHooting
Red
CZ-100
Member
Polymer guns
What are you guys using on Polymer guns?
What are you guys using on Polymer guns?
ShaiVong
Member
Astroglide.
Chris Rhines
Member
I use Slide-Glide on the frame and slide rails, locking lugs, barrel pivot, and recoil spring guide and bushing. Pretty much every moving part in the upper gets a thin coat of SG#1, also the trigger bars of my CZ.
Hammers and sears get wiped down with a bit of FP-10.
- Chris
Hammers and sears get wiped down with a bit of FP-10.
- Chris
Cthulhu
Member
Oil is superior to grease when it comes to mechanical wear properties. Period. Grease is base oil, additives, and a thickening agent. It is the additives (and to a lesser extent the base oil) that determine the mechanical properties. Other than the increased viscosity which allows it to stay put compared to an oil, grease has no increased ability to fight wear or shear or sliding friction. In fact these thickening agents tend to diminish the properties of the additives and oil. This is not voodoo or opinion, but textbook Tribology, covered in various engineering disciplines, and the foundation for the whole field of lubrication engineering.
Saying that "for high wear points, you need grease" is simply untrue. Thats not to say that grease isn't extremely useful in certain circumstances; it is indeed. However, most of these conditions are not found within the operating mechanisms of personal smallarms. I use it sparingly, for places like choke tubes, or inside the mainspring housings of 1911's. It is also handy for storage purposes, where its resistence to evaporation over long periods of time is actually useful. I can see arguments for using it inside the mechanisms of revolvers, where dirt and grit are less able to contaminate it.
For most weapons and environments, however, oil will give superior lubrication properties. Despite the fact that the best oils leave a unseen boundry film that protects the metal, many people need to see their lubricant in order to believe that it is effective. Instead of using grease, increase the frequency of your maintence and lubrication regimen until your weapons appear satisfactorily clean and lubed (this doesn't include bare metal guns dripping oil though).
That being said, I use and recommend MPC FP-10 on frame rails (almost everything else too). Aside from lubrication and cleaning abilities, informal tests have shown it to be one of the best at preventing rust too, followed by Eezox and Breakfree CLP which I would recommend (in that order) if FP-10 was unavailable. When I need grease, I use MPC lithium grease or <gasp!> tetra grease. Despite modern theories to the contrary, FP-10 has yet to cause an explosion due to incidental contact with Tetra grease. I've been very impressed with Slide Glide, but there seems to be little test data out on it and it is,after all, still grease.
Saying that "for high wear points, you need grease" is simply untrue. Thats not to say that grease isn't extremely useful in certain circumstances; it is indeed. However, most of these conditions are not found within the operating mechanisms of personal smallarms. I use it sparingly, for places like choke tubes, or inside the mainspring housings of 1911's. It is also handy for storage purposes, where its resistence to evaporation over long periods of time is actually useful. I can see arguments for using it inside the mechanisms of revolvers, where dirt and grit are less able to contaminate it.
For most weapons and environments, however, oil will give superior lubrication properties. Despite the fact that the best oils leave a unseen boundry film that protects the metal, many people need to see their lubricant in order to believe that it is effective. Instead of using grease, increase the frequency of your maintence and lubrication regimen until your weapons appear satisfactorily clean and lubed (this doesn't include bare metal guns dripping oil though).
That being said, I use and recommend MPC FP-10 on frame rails (almost everything else too). Aside from lubrication and cleaning abilities, informal tests have shown it to be one of the best at preventing rust too, followed by Eezox and Breakfree CLP which I would recommend (in that order) if FP-10 was unavailable. When I need grease, I use MPC lithium grease or <gasp!> tetra grease. Despite modern theories to the contrary, FP-10 has yet to cause an explosion due to incidental contact with Tetra grease. I've been very impressed with Slide Glide, but there seems to be little test data out on it and it is,after all, still grease.
Quote:
"I've conducted some tests of all the major lubes and greases for 2 factors... corrosion resistance and friction reduction. The winner in both catagories was FP-10. That's what I use now in my guns and my knives."
I also conducted a test and found that when comparing FP-10, Militec-1, and Wilson's Ultima-Lube, the FP-10 was the worst in terms of reducing friction. Of course this was a very unscientific test, but I repeated it a couple times with the same results. I really wanted the FP-10 to do well, as it would be awesome to be able to use just one product for all my needs. But such was not the case.
I know that Militec-1 is not the best for corrosion protection, but I've never really had a problem with corrosion anyway. It's lubrication that I'm looking for.
If it's an all-in-one product that I want, like in the field, FP-10 would be my choice. But I don't mind using a separate cleaner and lube. There is no way a product can be made to act as a cleaner, protectant, and lube and do all three as well as a product designed to do just one of those things well.
Anyway, I like grease for the rails except for maybe in sub-freezing weather.
"I've conducted some tests of all the major lubes and greases for 2 factors... corrosion resistance and friction reduction. The winner in both catagories was FP-10. That's what I use now in my guns and my knives."
I also conducted a test and found that when comparing FP-10, Militec-1, and Wilson's Ultima-Lube, the FP-10 was the worst in terms of reducing friction. Of course this was a very unscientific test, but I repeated it a couple times with the same results. I really wanted the FP-10 to do well, as it would be awesome to be able to use just one product for all my needs. But such was not the case.
I know that Militec-1 is not the best for corrosion protection, but I've never really had a problem with corrosion anyway. It's lubrication that I'm looking for.
If it's an all-in-one product that I want, like in the field, FP-10 would be my choice. But I don't mind using a separate cleaner and lube. There is no way a product can be made to act as a cleaner, protectant, and lube and do all three as well as a product designed to do just one of those things well.
Anyway, I like grease for the rails except for maybe in sub-freezing weather.
VaughnT
Member
Cthulhu, your thoughts on oil are interesting, but I wonder why my 1911 doesn't feel as smooth in cycling when I use oil on the slide rails as opposed to grease? If oil leaves an invisible barrier wall when the visible oil has drained out, how thick is it and is that enough to offer realistic lubrication under typical IDPA competition settings (i.e., hot, dirty, rapid fire)?
I know that when I put brake caliper grease on my rails, lugs and bushing, the pistol cycles very smoothly and can go through a meet without a hitch. After cleaning, the grease is applied and the weapon cycled by hand with all excess grease being wiped off. The grease will still be there and visibly evident after a match. Where's the oil?
The only problem I've had with the caliper grease is that it seems to congeal in the winter time and can slow the slide considerably. For that reason, I'll be looking for a lighter grease...or thinning what grease I have left with some CLP or the like.
I know that when I put brake caliper grease on my rails, lugs and bushing, the pistol cycles very smoothly and can go through a meet without a hitch. After cleaning, the grease is applied and the weapon cycled by hand with all excess grease being wiped off. The grease will still be there and visibly evident after a match. Where's the oil?
The only problem I've had with the caliper grease is that it seems to congeal in the winter time and can slow the slide considerably. For that reason, I'll be looking for a lighter grease...or thinning what grease I have left with some CLP or the like.
Cthulhu
Member
The boundary film is extremely thin, about 3 microns. Human hairs are 80-100 microns. The protection of boundry films comes into play only when existing conditions prevent the formation of normal hydrodynamic films that seperate the bearing surfaces. This includes conditions of extreme speed and load on the surfaces, as well as when the conditions are "parched" and their is no lubricant resevoir to constantly replace the oil. Under normal lubricating conditions, a thin (but much thicker than the boundary layer) film of lubricant holds the two surfaces apart. The boundary film uses the same action, but the layer is formed just above the surface, after the lubricant has filled voids in the micro-imperfections of the metal.
Most 1911 rails are not even close to what I would call smooth. Surface imperfections are easily felt with the fingernail if not visible to the naked eye. Even if they are carefully surface honed, the nature of the metals surface means the surface is still contains voids and imperfections. Lubricants fills these voids on a surface, providing a fluid surface for the layer of lubricant on the opposite surface to slide on. Grease is typically applied thicker than a coat of oil. At least initially, its hydrodynamic film is thicker and its viscosity is higher. This in effect tightens tolerances, and reduces play in the slide. It might feel "smoother" than when oiled due to the increased but consistent drag, but the protection mechanism is effectively the same. The hand isn't the precision gauge for coefficients of friction that we'd like to believe it is. The greases have lower stability and mechanical resistence to shock, shear, and temperature due to the thickening agents, so while they may persist better, they don't necessarily protect better.
If you need to see your gun slathered in grease to believe that it is adquately lubricated, continue to do so. Just don't purport greases to be better under extreme stress, shock, shear, whatever than oil of similar base and additives. This is simply incorrect. I don't care what Brian Enos, Todd Jarret, or Bill Wilson say about grease vs oil. They are not lubrication engineers and modern science does not support their claims. They run grease and their guns run in competition, thats great! They also tear down the gun often, clean them often, and use grease tailored to the temperature and conditions. Just about anything would work under those circumstances. Is grease ideal for this use? Depends on the conditions and the needs of the mechanism.
For a carry gun that is inspected every day or so, (or should be) oil gives superior lubrication characteristics for most applications in a wider range of conditions. An IDPA match has a relatively low round count, despite quick bursts of fire, and the gun should be adequately protected even by parched oil conditions.
Most 1911 rails are not even close to what I would call smooth. Surface imperfections are easily felt with the fingernail if not visible to the naked eye. Even if they are carefully surface honed, the nature of the metals surface means the surface is still contains voids and imperfections. Lubricants fills these voids on a surface, providing a fluid surface for the layer of lubricant on the opposite surface to slide on. Grease is typically applied thicker than a coat of oil. At least initially, its hydrodynamic film is thicker and its viscosity is higher. This in effect tightens tolerances, and reduces play in the slide. It might feel "smoother" than when oiled due to the increased but consistent drag, but the protection mechanism is effectively the same. The hand isn't the precision gauge for coefficients of friction that we'd like to believe it is. The greases have lower stability and mechanical resistence to shock, shear, and temperature due to the thickening agents, so while they may persist better, they don't necessarily protect better.
If you need to see your gun slathered in grease to believe that it is adquately lubricated, continue to do so. Just don't purport greases to be better under extreme stress, shock, shear, whatever than oil of similar base and additives. This is simply incorrect. I don't care what Brian Enos, Todd Jarret, or Bill Wilson say about grease vs oil. They are not lubrication engineers and modern science does not support their claims. They run grease and their guns run in competition, thats great! They also tear down the gun often, clean them often, and use grease tailored to the temperature and conditions. Just about anything would work under those circumstances. Is grease ideal for this use? Depends on the conditions and the needs of the mechanism.
For a carry gun that is inspected every day or so, (or should be) oil gives superior lubrication characteristics for most applications in a wider range of conditions. An IDPA match has a relatively low round count, despite quick bursts of fire, and the gun should be adequately protected even by parched oil conditions.
OP
OP
Redlg155
Member
Modern science may not support their claims, but they win matches don't they?
I vaguely remember something about a bumble bee can't fly........
Good Shooting
Red
After much experimenting I've settled on Ezzox for CLP. It is also one of the very best corrosion inhibitors that is also a lubricant. And, TW25B grease for places such as slide rails where a very thin non migrating lubricant is needed. My corrosion tests of FP-10 were very disappointing and it does migrate.
Cthulhu
Member
Those of you interested in the ongoing grease debate should probably skip towards the bottom.
This is an old wives tale, still dredged up and misquoted by the uninformed (not that I'm implying anything towards Redlg155). Attributed to many great names in the scientific community, it has been most consitently attatched to M. Sainte-Lague, a lab assistent of the famous French entomologist August Magnan. It appears as a note in his 1934 (!) book about insect flight. It seems that his assistent did some off the cuff calculations based on photo studies of tethered insect flight and contemporary theories of rigid, smooth-winged flight, determining that the flight of bumblebees is an impossibility. Apparently the tiny wings don't develop sufficient lift to support their relatively massive bodies. With its publishing, a legend was born. As anyone who has seen a bee will note, they can indeed fly. So science proves incorrect what we can plainly see with our own eyes to be true? Not in this case.
Bees wings are not fixed, so calculations assuming rigid wings do not accurately model them. Nor do their wings follow conventional bird flight dynamics (flapping flight)? The aerodynamics of insect flight is hot area of research, and you can bet that the flight characteristics of bees is one of them. High speed photography and computer simulations have brought us a long way from the back-of-a-napkin calculation of an obscure lab assistent in the 1930s.
Modern theories suggest that the flexible airfoil design of the wings allows small but powerful vortexs and fluid wakes to be generated and captured to provide lift out of proportion to the area of the wing. The wings motion constantly changes their angle of attack, generating rotational lift as well. Think of it more like swimming in a light fluid than flying in air, and it becomes clearer. Most importantly, any scientist who still believes that bees cannot fly has most likely been hiding in a cave for 70 years.
Sorry to digress from grease, but the perpetuation of antiquated science legends irks me almost as much as modern misuse of the facts. Don't even get me started on "Muscle Memory"....
From bees to grease:
I think Brian and the others won matches before they had settled on using grease, and would continue to win matches regardless of their lubricant choice. Their tremendous skill gained through constant effective practice is more a factor than selection of grease vs oil. Plus IPSC competition is about as close to real life as NASCAR is to real driving on the street. Facetiously extending that reasoning, I should turn in my car for a paper-thin skinned frame with wheels, powered by a 60's-era carbureted pushrod V-8, because thats what works for the pros.
This is an old wives tale, still dredged up and misquoted by the uninformed (not that I'm implying anything towards Redlg155). Attributed to many great names in the scientific community, it has been most consitently attatched to M. Sainte-Lague, a lab assistent of the famous French entomologist August Magnan. It appears as a note in his 1934 (!) book about insect flight. It seems that his assistent did some off the cuff calculations based on photo studies of tethered insect flight and contemporary theories of rigid, smooth-winged flight, determining that the flight of bumblebees is an impossibility. Apparently the tiny wings don't develop sufficient lift to support their relatively massive bodies. With its publishing, a legend was born. As anyone who has seen a bee will note, they can indeed fly. So science proves incorrect what we can plainly see with our own eyes to be true? Not in this case.
Bees wings are not fixed, so calculations assuming rigid wings do not accurately model them. Nor do their wings follow conventional bird flight dynamics (flapping flight)? The aerodynamics of insect flight is hot area of research, and you can bet that the flight characteristics of bees is one of them. High speed photography and computer simulations have brought us a long way from the back-of-a-napkin calculation of an obscure lab assistent in the 1930s.
Modern theories suggest that the flexible airfoil design of the wings allows small but powerful vortexs and fluid wakes to be generated and captured to provide lift out of proportion to the area of the wing. The wings motion constantly changes their angle of attack, generating rotational lift as well. Think of it more like swimming in a light fluid than flying in air, and it becomes clearer. Most importantly, any scientist who still believes that bees cannot fly has most likely been hiding in a cave for 70 years.
Sorry to digress from grease, but the perpetuation of antiquated science legends irks me almost as much as modern misuse of the facts. Don't even get me started on "Muscle Memory"....
From bees to grease:
I think Brian and the others won matches before they had settled on using grease, and would continue to win matches regardless of their lubricant choice. Their tremendous skill gained through constant effective practice is more a factor than selection of grease vs oil. Plus IPSC competition is about as close to real life as NASCAR is to real driving on the street. Facetiously extending that reasoning, I should turn in my car for a paper-thin skinned frame with wheels, powered by a 60's-era carbureted pushrod V-8, because thats what works for the pros.
OP
OP
Redlg155
Member
I won't debate too much on what we consider to be "Modern Science". Each time a generation thinks that they have "arrived" a successive generation proves that they have not quite done so. What seems impossible today becomes possible tomorrow, often destroying well known theories or physical barriers previously thought to be the limit. (Not that I'm implying anything towards what Cthulhu had said).
The experiences of users, and I see many here, cannot be discounted simply because modern "lubrication engineering" does not support their claims.
To keep things civil I shall refrain from any prolonged discussions towards what I think about modern science and theories, much of which I believe will be proven wrong by a certain great event coming in the future.
Now back to the grease.
I just purchased some Tetra Gun grease to try on a couple of weapons that I own. I'll try using both Miltec and Tetra and see how they compare to each other.
Good Shooting
Red
The experiences of users, and I see many here, cannot be discounted simply because modern "lubrication engineering" does not support their claims.
To keep things civil I shall refrain from any prolonged discussions towards what I think about modern science and theories, much of which I believe will be proven wrong by a certain great event coming in the future.
Now back to the grease.
I just purchased some Tetra Gun grease to try on a couple of weapons that I own. I'll try using both Miltec and Tetra and see how they compare to each other.
Good Shooting
Red
Really the whole debate is somewhat academic since just about any lube will keep a gun running. Some may work marginally better than others, but unless your running thousands upon thousands of rounds per month through the gun, those differences will not likely manifest themselves.
In theory, in a perfect laboratory setting, perhaps oil does lubricate better than grease, because it closer to being 100% comprised of the base stocks than grease is. But in the real world, there have been many people who have had excellent results, virtually 0 wear after countless rounds, with good grease.
I certainly know that with Militec-1 grease on the rails of my 1911, it feels smoother than with anything else I've tried. And after a long range session, it still feels just as smooth, unlike with oil.
In theory, in a perfect laboratory setting, perhaps oil does lubricate better than grease, because it closer to being 100% comprised of the base stocks than grease is. But in the real world, there have been many people who have had excellent results, virtually 0 wear after countless rounds, with good grease.
I certainly know that with Militec-1 grease on the rails of my 1911, it feels smoother than with anything else I've tried. And after a long range session, it still feels just as smooth, unlike with oil.
Mute
Member
I use FP10. Haven't had any problems yet.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
